The Magistrate's satisfaction based on documentary evidence is sufficient for taking cognizance of the offence, and the complaint need not specifically mention all offences made out by the facts.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Dr. Salil Kumar Srivastava, the learned counsel for applicant, Sri Gyanendra Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Ashok Kumar Verma, the learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant has challenged the validity of the summoning order dated 25.08.2022 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, Pollution/ CBI, Lucknow in Complaint no.1008 of 2020, whereby the applicant-firm and its 7 partners have been summoned to face trial under Section 37 of the Air Act.

3. On 10.02.2020, the opposite party no. 2 -the U. P. Pollution Control Board (which will hereinafter be referred to as ‘the Board’) filed a complaint under Section 37 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (which will hereinafter be referred to as ‘the Air Act’), through an Assistant Environmental Engineer of the Board, against the applicant firm and its 7 partners, stating that by means of an order dated 15.02.2018 passed by the Chief Environmental Officer, Circle-1, the applicant -M/s Albert David Ltd was granted consent under Section 21 of the Air Act for 06TPH PNG fired boiler, which was valid for the period from 01.01.2018 to 31.12.2019. However, during an inspection made on 06.12.2019, it was found that the applicant had installed a new 8TPH PNG fired boiler and was operating the same without obtaining consent from the Pollution Control Board in violation of Section 21 of the Air Act, which was punishable under Section 37 of the Air Act.

4. On 25.08.2022, the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Pollution/CBI, Lucknow passed the impugned order summoning the accused persons to face trial under Section 37 of the Air Act.

5. Dr. Salil Kumar Srivastava, the learned Counsel for the applicant has challenged the validity of the summoning order on numerous grounds. The first submission of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that the complaint has been filed by an Assistant Environmental Engineer of U.P. Pollution Control Board, who is not authorized to file the complaint as per the provisions contained in Section 43 of the Air Act. In reply to this submission, the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has submitted that Section 15 of the Air Act provides that ‘a State Board may, by general or special order, delegate to the Chairman or the member-secretary or any other officer of the Board subject to such conditions and limitations, if any, as may be specified in the order, such of its powers and functions under this Act as it may deem necessary.’

6. In rebuttal, Dr Salil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the power conferred under Section 15 of the Air Act is a general power whereas the power to institute prosecution has specifically been provided under Section 43 of the Air Act. Section 43 (1) (a) of the Air Act provides that No Court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act except on a complaint made by a Board or any officer authorised in this behalf by it. Section 15 (1) of the Air Act provides that “A State Board may, by general or special order, delegate to the Chairman or the member-secretary or any other officer of the Board subject to such conditions and limitations, if any, as may be specified in the order, such of its powers and functions under this Act as it may deem necessary.”

7. Dr. Srivastava has contended that as the resolution dated 23.12.1981 passed by the Board does not contain the name of Sri. Ritesh Tiwari, the Board has not delegated the powers to him and the powers have been delegated to Sri. Ritesh Tiwari by the Member Secretary of the Board, who had no authority to delegate the powers. In support of this contention, he has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Pramila and others versus State of Karnataka and another reported in (2015) 17 SCC 651, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “there cannot be any doubt, that when the authorities dec